Natasha Irons MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I speak as the granddaughter of Jamaican immigrants who came to this country and had a council house, and then bought that council house and profited from right to buy. The conversation we had around our dinner table was, “Isn’t right to buy great? The problem is they are not rebuilding the houses.” The idea of changing the policy is to stop the leakage out of the system. We cannot continue to pour more into the top while it comes out of the bottom. I hope we can agree that building more social homes is everyone’s objective, but keeping them in the system will also alleviate the pressure on social housing.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I want to clarify the point about people born in other countries and living here. If a person is born somewhere else, it does not mean that they are not a British citizen, or that their children were not born in this country. Being in social housing does not mean not being in work. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if someone becomes a British citizen after moving to this country, they should have a different tier of support in the system, even if they have paid into it?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Would you like to clarify?

• 8 Sept 2026 · Online Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for this major step forward—it is a massive intervention in this space. She has rightly given the industry time to think about how it is going to approach these issues, but we cannot wait forever. Time is of the essence, and our young people are being put at risk every single day, so can the Secretary of State assure the House that while this legislation is being developed and while we look at the issues around it, the Government will continue to press these companies to act with the urgency and sense of moral leadership that they should be acting with?

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Anyone who has been a new mother will understand that for some women breastfeeding is very easy, and for some women it is not. Does the hon. Member agree that research into the difference between an easy breastfeeding experience and a harder one is not particularly good? If all a struggling mother wants to do is feed her baby, because she has been told that she needs to feed her baby and that if she goes below a point on a chart, she is not doing a good job, perhaps we need more investment and research into how we can make it easier for mothers to breastfeed, so that they can make informed and supported choices as they go forward.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) on the wonderful Bill he has brought forward and on the debate, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for her tireless work on this issue. Up and down the country, it is a bittersweet time for parents. We have enjoyed spending the summer with our children, creating lasting memories, but we are also celebrating not having been asked to provide a snack for the last 10 minutes, or worrying if someone has fallen down the stairs, like in my house. In our household, we are celebrating my eldest putting on a blazer for the first time and heading off to high school—[Hon. Members: “Aww!”] Yeah, it’s a bit much. It has been an interesting time, and as we have reached this new milestone in my son’s life, I could not help but reflect, in the context of this debate, on what it was like in those early days of parenthood, because no matter how scary it is to see my son becoming his own person and having his own views on things, nothing compares to that first initial fear when you become a parent, not knowing what to do and where to go, when you are a little bit dazed, terrified and wondering if you will ever sleep again. I think back to the services I leant on: the antenatal classes, the health visitor who came to my home—we have heard how important that is—and the stay and play that I took my son to and met other parents, where we were able to swap notes. We have remained lifelong friends, and they have helped raise my son, creating that sense of community and village around him. That network meant that I had the right diet during my pregnancy, that my son was surrounded by the things that helped him to learn, and that our new family had the support we needed to get the best possible start. We often talk in this place about policy being routed not in ideology but in evidence, focusing on what works and investing in that. Well, we know what works for the early years of a child’s life because the evidence is overwhelming. The first 1,001 days from pregnancy to a child’s second birthday are among the most important in human development. As the Government describe in their “Best start in life” review, these critical 1,001 days are the “foundations for lifelong emotional and physical wellbeing”, as many have mentioned today. Research shows that during these critical days, a baby’s brain develops at an extraordinary rate—doubling in size during their first year, with around 1 million neuro connections forming every second. These precious days have the potential to shape our health and resilience and who we are later to become. This Bill matters so much because it protects those critical days with legislation. It requires the Government to assess need, listen to parents and carers, ensure that appropriate support services are available, and report transparently to Parliament on the impact of that support. The reality is that too many children growing up are without the services they need in those most critical moments. If those neural pathways are developing every second, then every second counts, doesn’t it? In my constituency of Croydon East, around 30% of children are growing up in poverty. Croydon’s public health data suggests that girls growing up in the most affluent parts of our borough can expect to live around six years longer than the girls growing up in the least affluent parts. For boys, that gap is nine years. In a borough like Croydon, where a child’s postcode can still have a profound impact on their health and life expectancy, we cannot afford to treat early intervention as an optional extra. It is not a luxury; it is the most effective tool we have to break the cycles of disadvantage and create genuine equality of opportunity. That is why I cannot speak on this debate today without acknowledging the impact of Sure Start, which many colleagues have mentioned. Sure Start was the most successful early intervention programme this country has ever seen. Independent research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that access to Sure Start improved educational outcomes for disadvantaged children, with benefits lasting way up to their GCSEs. It found that the positive effects of Sure Start came with significant financial benefits, including reduced costs for Government services at later stages in life and increased tax revenue from higher earnings. In fact, it estimated that at its peak, Sure Start generated over £2 for every £1 of Government spending. Yet despite that evidence, funding for Sure Start fell by more than two thirds between 2010 and 2022, and over 1,000 children’s centres closed across England. I wholeheartedly welcome this Government’s commitment to giving every child the best possible start in life, for their investment in Best Start family hubs and the steps they have taken to eliminate child poverty by lifting the two-child benefit cap. But if history can teach us anything, it is that priorities change, spending changes and even Governments change, and when support at this critical time is scaled back, it is the most vulnerable who suffer. Just think about where we would be if we had kept that investment in those Sure Start centres, if they had not closed—if families, regardless of their shape, size or background, had continued to have the support and investment they needed, how much better off would we be? It is important that we do not make the same mistakes. The Bill means that for the first time, we legally give the first 1,000 days the recognition, protection and visibility that they deserve. We set out that no matter what or who is in charge, we choose to invest in our children. If we are serious about reducing inequality, improving mental and physical health, strengthening families, and giving every child the best possible start, then we must act when it matters the most: at the very beginning. I welcome the Bill and give it my full support. I am so proud to take part in this debate.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My own experiences as a new parent were as my hon. Friend described: it was this terrifying thing, “How do I keep this bundle of lovely joy alive and get some sleep at the same time?” Universality is so important but, as these services have lost funding, they have become more and more targeted. One of the good things about a universal service is meeting other parents from different backgrounds and children growing up in a community rather than in silos. Does my hon. Friend agree that any way forward has to be a one-stop shop model—a drop-in service, like a stay and play, not something highly targeted and specialised? It should be the sort of thing where parents can drop in, get some support, and meet other parents who are going through the same thing.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To bring us back to the Bill and to take the temperature down—to be fair, nobody on the Government Benches sent it up—the point is that this particular time, the first 1,001 days, has not been protected. I agree that of course we need to take support through to 19, but the challenge when Sure Start was rolled back was that councils found themselves with one pot of funding for the journey from conception to the teenage years, which meant that the youth services that help with later intervention were competing with the early intervention we are talking about today. Protecting this time means that we can invest properly in and hopefully bring down the cost of those youth services later on. I hope the hon. Member can agree on that point.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The idea of ringfencing and ensuring that we protect this time is the reason why the Bill is so important. Where councils did not ringfence in the past, they kind of lumped together youth services with this period of time. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that having a separate pot and protection for this time is valuable, even if we later have to look again at youth services for people as they get a bit older?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. A wise man recently called for“good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart.”In Croydon, these cannot come soon enough. Gatwick’s expansion could provide Croydon’s young people with world-class employment and training opportunities close to their homes, but the previous Conservative Government’s cuts to rail infrastructure investment around East Croydon station could still put them out of their reach as they cannot physically get to them. Will the Prime Minister look again at the Croydon area modelling scheme, back my campaign to unblock the Croydon bottleneck and outline what this Government are doing to give young people in Croydon East access to the opportunities they deserve?

• 9 Jul 2026 · Health Bill (Fifteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making powerful comments. I was struck by his argument that we need to focus more on what we do in communities. In Croydon East, a community diagnostic centre has opened, which is important because people in my community have a healthy life expectancy 10 years lower than that of people living a mile down the road. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should be focusing on those real, tangible interventions at the heart of the communities that need help the most? That is what this Government are trying to do.

• 8 Jul 2026 · National Youth Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) for securing this important debate. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth affairs, I know the importance of services for young people, and I welcome the Government’s leadership on this issue. When I meet young people in my constituency or through my work on the APPG, I am struck by how tough it is to be a young person in Britain today. Whether through the 73% cut in youth services over the last decade, a housing crisis that prevents some young people from moving on to the next stage of their lives and means that others grow up in temporary accommodation, or youth unemployment, our young people are growing up in a world that is economically challenging, internationally volatile and often hostile to them. Our young people are just as ambitious, just as determined and just as willing to work for their future as anyone who has gone before them, and in that context of hope, opportunity and ambition for our young people, the national youth strategy is so important. Around £1 billion has been taken out of the sector since 2010, more than half of council-run youth centres have closed, and the statutory framework is often too weak. We have been left with a postcode lottery for youth provision, where spending on youth services can range from as little as £1 per young person in one area to £137 in another. Co-created with young people, and backed by £500 million of Government investment, the national youth strategy is a 10-year plan to provide young people with somewhere to go, something meaningful to do and someone who cares. Although I wholeheartedly welcome this landmark strategy, for it to have a truly meaningful impact it must be backed by statutory protections for the services that our young people rely on. That is why I introduced the Youth Services Bill last year, which aims to strengthen the statutory duty on local authorities by introducing clear, measurable benchmarks for what sufficient youth provision looks like. It includes expectations around qualified staff and accessibility, and it embeds the conditions needed for long-term improvement through joined-up safeguarding, quality standards and meaningful youth voice in the design and delivery of services. I have seen at first hand the impact of a lack of statutory protections for youth services. In Croydon, London’s youngest borough, the council shut down the youth engagement team, a group of wonderful youth workers who were a critical link between the voluntary sector and the council. The lack of statutory protections meant that it could be closed down without real consultation with young people, the NHS or the police. Protecting our youth provision is not about placing unrealistic burdens on local authorities; it is about making a practical investment in our young people’s future and financial savings for our communities. As has been outlined, for every £1 we save on youth services, we save up to £6.40 in social value. Although I wholeheartedly recognise and welcome this strategy, I urge the Minister and the Government to think again about how we can provide statutory protections for our youth services.

• 24 Jun 2026 · Media Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest: I worked for a public service broadcaster and my husband still does. I say as somebody who understands the sector a bit that it is not just about public service but about recognising Britishness on our screens and in the media and, essentially, protecting what it is to be us, as well as providing opportunities for people to get into the sector. I really welcome the thinking on this issue, but can the Secretary of State give us a bit more detail on how the changes will ensure that our public service media are protected for the future, so that people can continue to access high-quality news and content in general, and are given opportunities?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to thank the young people in my constituency from Ark Blake Academy, Oasis Academy Arena and Oasis Academy Shirley Park for meeting me to share their views on how to keep them safe online. They were clear that they wanted action against the harmful aspects of social media, but wanted to protect the good bits. Can the Secretary of State outline the work being done across Government to ensure that young people continue to have access to safe opportunities to connect, both online and in their communities? Does she agree that it is time to give proper statutory protection to youth services, so that we ensure that all young people have somewhere safe to go, and something meaningful to do IRL?

• 3 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. I am proud that, after decades, this Labour Government are putting passengers before profit by bringing Greater Thameslink Railway, Southern and Gatwick Express into public ownership. The previous Government shelved plans to unblock the bottleneck at East Croydon station, which not only causes delays from Bedford to Brighton, but leaves constituents at Norwood Junction station in limbo. Will the Prime Minister look again at the Croydon area remodelling scheme and back my campaign to unblock the Croydon bottleneck? Does he agree that, by bringing our railways back into public hands, this Government are getting us back on track?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Milburn Review: Interim Report · Hansard source

  More

  This is not just about work; this is about what it means to grow up as a young person in this country and meeting the ambitions of young people like those in my community in Croydon East. The Government have already announced a number of measures to support our young people. Can the Minister outline what can be done to bring together the national youth strategy, the Young Futures programme, the youth guarantee, youth hubs, health and education to ensure that our response to this emergency is joined up and across all of Government?

• 29 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. With £158 million in fair funding, £20 million of Pride in Place funding for New Addington and funding for new trams, this Labour Government are finally giving Croydon the backing that it needs. Building a Croydon for all starts with ensuring that our residents have the dignity and stability of a decent home, but hundreds of families in my constituency face homelessness because of no-fault evictions, so will the Prime Minister outline how the Government are progressing on their plans to fix the private rented sector and ensure that renters in Croydon have the security and peace of mind that they deserve?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Knife Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her tireless work and campaigning on this issue, both in this place and in our community of Croydon. I know that this moral mission is personal to her, but given her experience, does she agree that tackling knife crime requires a whole-system approach bringing together policing, schools, health and communities? Can she outline how this plan strengthens the partnerships at a local level in communities like ours in Croydon?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. As the Minister will know, this is the second time that I have secured a debate on this topic; it is great to be reunited with him today. It is really important to return to the subject, because the Croydon area modelling scheme is not just about driving billions in economic growth across the east and south-east, or capitalising on key infrastructure projects such as the expansion of Gatwick and Luton airports, or the opening of the Universal Studios theme park, but about something far greater. It is about getting a lift at Norwood Junction station. The Croydon area modelling scheme, or CARS, is a Network Rail plan to add capacity and resilience to the most complex part of Britain’s rail network, and improve services not just on the Brighton main line but on the wider Thameslink growth corridor, which runs from Peterborough to Brighton. The lack of capacity at East Croydon station and the complex series of junctions north of Croydon—the Selhurst triangle—means that trains across the Brighton main line and the wider Thameslink corridor, including those that run between Gatwick and Luton airports, have been vulnerable to delays and cancellations for many years. Thameslink and the Brighton main line are integral to economic growth in the east and south-east, and the demand for services will only increase. Around 18% of national passenger journeys take place on the Govia Thameslink Railway network, and south of London it is already the most congested part of the rail network in the country. The Brighton main line is 5% of the southern region network, but delivers about 25% of its revenue, which helps to sustain and subsidise the wider rail system. About 1.7 million people live in areas served by the Brighton main line outside of London and more than 30,000 passengers a day already depend on this corridor. Across the local authorities served by the Brighton main line, around 34,000 homes are required to be delivered every year, and on the Thameslink line Luton airport wants to nearly double passenger numbers to 32 million by 2043, while Gatwick is seeking to grow from around 40 million passengers today to as many as 80 million in the late 2030s. The new Universal Studios theme park in Bedfordshire, which is due to open in 2031, is expected to attract 8.5 million visitors a year and support 28,000 jobs. That is a genuine growth and opportunity corridor, and it all flows through the bottleneck at East Croydon. East Croydon station already handles more trains in a day than all the inter-city operators from Euston, St Pancras and King’s Cross. It is a critical pinch point, where limited platforms, constrained tracks and complex junctions restrict the number of trains that can flow through it. It is because Thameslink is such an interconnected system that delays here do not stay here. A problem at the Croydon bottleneck quickly spreads across the Brighton main line, through the Thameslink core and across the wider network. Around 67% of trains passing through East Croydon are late or cancelled. For the people who rely on that vital route every day, that means missed connections, unreliable journeys and longer commutes. The issue is made even more pressing because every rail service between London and Gatwick passes through East Croydon. Gatwick’s northern runway expansion is a £2.2 billion project that is expected to support around 14,000 jobs and deliver an estimated boost of £1 billion a year to the economy. However, that could all be held back by poor rail infrastructure. Gatwick plans include a commitment to have 54% of journeys to the airport made by public transport, so rail is not an optional extra; it is a fundamental element of Gatwick’s success. Without remodelling at East Croydon and in the wider Selhurst triangle, the Brighton main line is expected to reach 100% capacity by 2030. Addressing the bottleneck could unlock around £5.1 billion in economic value over the next 20 years, and provide the resilience and growth that this corridor needs to succeed.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Croydon Area Remodelling Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. We have to look at economic investment and infrastructure in broad terms. The fact that local plans can unlock local growth corridors and be key to local areas should be included in the assessment of the validity of these projects. Addressing the bottleneck could unlock around £5.1 billion in economic value over the next 20 years and provide resilience and growth for this vital corridor. The Croydon area remodelling scheme would expand East Croydon from six platforms to eight, redesign the track layout and remove the conflicting train movements that cause so many delays today. It could create capacity for an additional four to six trains an hour and, based on previous modelling, could deliver around 15% extra peak capacity. The scheme would also support wider station improvements, drive economic growth and, most importantly, finally get us a lift at Norwood Junction station. Network Rail will not draw up plans for a lift just in case CARS happens at some point in the future, but the Department for Transport has not agreed to restart CARS, which leaves commuters at Norwood Junction stuck in an endless cycle of lift limbo. Further delays to getting CARS off the ground could hold back economic growth not only for the south-east, which is estimated to be the seventh largest regional economy in the country, but for some of this Government’s key infrastructure investments. This Government have rightly stated their intention to grow every corner of this country, and that good public transport will no longer be confined to the boundaries of our city, so I urge the Minister to consider the wider impact that investment in CARS could have on our coastal communities and our towns and regions outside London. CARS is not just good for Croydon and south-east; it is good for the whole country.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this urgent question. In my constituency, we have had a massive uptick in complaints about not only letters being delivered late, but priority service not happening when people have paid for it, and constituents being advised to collect post from delivery offices without prior notification of an attempted delivery; essentially, they are asked to become their own Royal Mail. Having met local workers over Christmas, I know that they are working incredibly hard to keep on top of this, and they are just as frustrated as my residents. My biggest concern is that when Members have raised the issue with Royal Mail, its response has been, quite frankly, rude, dismissive and a bit lacklustre. Will the Minister please outline what he will do to ensure that postal services are protected in my community, and communities across the country?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I recently had the pleasure of visiting Coloma Convent girls’ school in my constituency, where students are campaigning on the vital issue of debt relief for developing countries and what this nation can do about it. They highlighted the stark reality that 3.3 billion people live in nations that spend more on servicing debt than on health, infrastructure and education. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the teachers, students and staff at Coloma for their work to highlight this issue, and will he make time for a debate on the growing global debt crisis and the UK’s role in supporting meaningful debt relief?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  On that point about making an economic choice, we are talking about the creative industries, which are worth hundreds of billions of pounds to our economy. Ensuring we have a diverse voice and qualified people in those jobs and having access to those skills is really important. I was a working-class child who ended up working at Channel 4 because of my degree. We should not ask working-class children to make those distinctions so early on in their careers; we should give them the opportunity to experience those careers as they move forward.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  I have enjoyed the perks of being an elder millennial, graduating in 2004 as a plan 1 student. The retrospective changing of the threshold, burdening plan 2 students with debt, is unbelievable, as is linking interest to the retail price index not the consumer prices index, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has discredited. Does my hon. Friend agree that addressing fundamental fairness means changing those structural factors that came in after people signed up to the agreements?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Student Loan Repayment Plans · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) for securing the debate. The system that the current Government have inherited, after years of failure on the issue by the previous Government, is complex, ineffective and simply unfair. What was supposed to be a system that enabled fair contributions to the cost of higher education has become a long-term financial burden that is quietly eroding living standards. Freezing the repayment threshold for plan 2 borrowers has quietly increased the real cost of payments year after year, pulling more people into making repayments and extending the burden far beyond what was expected. Changing the terms of a repayment after a contract has been agreed is fundamentally wrong. Using RPI as the measure to calculate interest—a measure the OBR says should be discouraged, as it is not a good measure of inflation—is completely wrong. Linking rates to CPI rather than RPI and removing the additional 3% margin could restore credibility and better reflect economic reality. Student loans were supposed to be an income-contingent contribution towards higher education, not a perpetual liability. Today’s graduates are being asked to accept not only a system that we did not face ourselves, but one in which the terms can be changed after they have been signed up to. This debate is not about walking away from supporting our universities. It is about building a country where talent thrives and choosing to become a nurse or a teacher is not quietly penalised by decades of repayments. It is about restoring balance. It is about designing a system that is progressive and sustainable—one that protects universities, supports students and reflects our values as a country. It is about fairness.